Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
What points would you all say we can AGREE on? I'd agree that:
1) More people could save and/or save more if they wanted to.
2) MANY, if not most people, have spent money (they could have saved) on WAY more things than they need. (Not that everyone who does that is a pack rat or worse, but just watch any hoarding show.) For me, by definition, if you spent money on NONnecessities, that was disposable income you COULD have saved.
BUT TRUE necessities are VERY few, really just needed for subsistence and survival. And who wants to live at just that level if one can 'afford' more or has more money left over for a better standard of living or quality of life? Most people want more than that. And there's nothing wrong with that.
3) A key question is when does spending a certain amount of that disposable income come at the expense of saving TO THE POINT where it compromises retirement savings to the point of not having enough for years later IN RETIREMENT.
4) If a person is maxing out a 401-K or SEP, AND an IRA, AND saving 10 percent or more of their income in investments, WITH OR WITHOUT having a pension coming, AND Social Security.....then I'd say that person's disposable income spending can be whatever he/she wants it to be....they're not compromising retirement savings. They could save more -- but NOT saving that additional amount isn't "an issue."
5) BUT for the person who is NOT maxing a 401-K or SEP, NOR an IRA -- NOR saving anything for retirement (Let's HOPE they at least have an emergency fund. But many people wont' even have that). Well, THIS person technically doesn't need to be spending ANY money on non-essentials. THIS person, should probably get SOME money saved.
BUT being human beings with pleasure desires -- and living in a society that promotes materialism -- this person is likely NOT saving every dime. This person, is likely buying some non-essentials (if not many -- whether more clothes than one needs, a second TV, a trip, eating out, whatever) -- and we can only hope -- is saving SOME money.
6) Most people (me included) aren't going to 'deny' themselves but so much that they want (for whatever reason) to save but so much. And being the individual creatures that we are -- what's a desire for one -- another person wouldn't even think of buying.
If a person sees a book as a treat, or another likes a good dinner out once in a while, or another likes handbags, or another the latest electronic gadget...it's only natural they'd ask themselves is NOT buying this REALLY going to jeopardize my retirement savings -- or really the difference between having six months living expenses in an EF versus 8 months or a year? Most people who work everyday (at jobs most would quit in a heartbeat) ask themselves, "what the heck am I working for that I can't buy even a lousy fill in the blank. I deserve/want something NOW for my hard work, and I'm going to get it. I may not even LIVE until retirement, I could be hit by a bus tomorrow." Again -- the debatable issue is when does that spending compromise retirement savings.
7) ALL OF THIS is what some here find moot and a worthless discussion -- and others find a fascinating and interesting socio-economic debate.
Usually it's the big ticket items that eat up the budget.
People spend too much on housing and cars. I'd even throw in the cellphone in that list as it's basically a necessity. But a necessity is pretty minimal. A prepaid cellphone plan is a necessity these days for a lot of people, a $100+ iPhone Everything Plan? Not so much. A roof is a necessity. The luxury apartment, condo, or average 2,400 square foot SFH... well, no. You won't die if you live in a working-class neighborhood. Unfortunately, with the failing public school system, general apathy towards education and disregard for personal accountability, and it being non-PC to sort students based on academic ability, the public schools likely suck in working-class neighborhoods. That's a societal failure. Parents are put in a tough spot there.
I've pointed out the lack of foundation in the nasty things you've tried to say about others. Why are you continuing to defend that? Like mathjak said: Share you own experiences, your own story. Don't make up nasty things about other people. Stop rationalizing that. It's wrong. Stop doing it.
Why you do distort in order to hide from answering these questions? I think we both know any logical answer you give would support me.
-Do you honestly believe that America is that economically bad, that 3/4ths of Americans aged 50 to 65 can not save $30K total over their life while making good financial decisions?
-Do you honestly believe that we don't have a consumer culture, something that Occupy Wall Street argued?
-Do you honestly believe that wide swaths of society are not choosing to buy more than they need at the expense of saving?
-Do you think it would be too hard for 75% of Americans to average 11 cents a day invested from age 18 to 65? This would have gotten you over $30K assuming S&P with dividends reinvested. You just beat most Americans!!! What about a buck a day invested from age 25 to 65? This would have gotten you over $200K assuming S&P 500 with dividends reinvested again. You would be well ahead of the vast majority!!! What if you took $480 a year and continuously invested them in 5 year cds...reinvesting ones that came due for 30 years, 1984 to 2013...you would have more saved than most Americans near retirement with over $30K based on historic rates.
"The average college graduate, with an average 2013 starting salary of $44,928, is making more in annual income than 99.63% of the world’s workers (according to globalrichlist.com). In the U .S. most of us aren’t living paycheck to paycheck because we don’t make enough money. We are living paycheck to paycheck because we let our spending dictate our savings"
"The average college graduate, with an average 2013 starting salary of $44,928, is making more in annual income than 99.63% of the world’s workers (according to globalrichlist.com). In the U .S. most of us aren’t living paycheck to paycheck because we don’t make enough money. We are living paycheck to paycheck because we let our spending dictate our savings"
I'm pretty sure the most under-taught subject is "grammer." Hell, throw in basic writing in there too. It might not be grammatically incorrect, but "the average college graduate, with an average..." is just bad, sloppy writing.
I'm pretty sure the most under-taught subject is "grammer." Hell, throw in basic writing in there too. It might not be grammatically incorrect, but "the average college graduate, with an average..." is just bad, sloppy writing.
So you're saying that on average, the average magazine writer has below average grammer? Only a looser like you would attack writer's like that.
So you're saying that on average, the average magazine writer has below average grammer? Only a looser like you would attack writer's like that.
PS-
Yes. The authors also have a background in finance. They should not be using average so loosely. The article is geared towards the college-educated. And they should not avoid using complex sentences. All those sentences are short. And that makes it painful to read. Loosers like me like longer sentences.
they should not avoid using complex sentences. All those sentences are short. And that makes it painful to read. Loosers like me like longer sentences.
Ha!!!!*
Speaking of short sentences, at my old job I learned to write emails that had the important issue in the subject and in the first half of the first sentence. Why? Because I could never be sure that anyone would read an email much beyond that. Figured that out after writing things that had the important bit in the second paragraph and had a few responses where it was clear they never got that far.
*- Yes, I saw what you did there. Your comments about the sentences. They were good. You should write like that. Maybe you'd get a job with a magazine. And then you could write like that more.
Why you do distort in order to hide from answering these questions?
I'm not distorting at all. I'm keeping to the point I made, fastidiously. The only thing you've said that I have objected to is the prejudicial nonsense you posted attacking people you don't know. I'm not allowing you to try to distract attention away from that by trying to divert off onto a tangent. You want to make other points, go ahead - post them as separate comments, and I'll probably just quietly read them like most participants in the thread, just reading and not replying - but do not post those other comments in response to the discussion between you and I - because we have only conversed about one thing. At some point, you'll agree to be done with our discussion, and move on. Let's hope it is soon.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
